Industries Intrastate Transportation
||Date Issued||Company Name/
|Order No. 735-A 131 FERC ∂ 61,216||December 16, 2010||Contract Reporting Requirements of Intrastate Natural Gas Companies|| • Retracts the increased requirements for contract end dates (Per P 19: only for firm transportation storage contracts, not interruptible) and per-customer revenue, info only on an annual basis. P 22
• Extends the filing deadline from 30 to 60 days after each reporting quarter.
|Order No. 735
131 FERC ∂ 61,150
|May 20, 2010||Contract Reporting Requirements of Intrastate Natural Gas Companies||• Revises the contract reporting requirements for the natural gas pipelines that fall under the Commissionís jurisdiction pursuant to Section 311 of the NGPA or Section 1(c) of the NGA. The order increases the reporting frequency from annual to quarterly and the reporting includes certain additional types of information and cover storage transactions as well as transportation transactions.
• Reports must be filed in a uniform electronic format and posted on the Commissionís website. P 86-88
• Form No. 549D must be filed as public and may not be filed with information redacted as privileged. P 74-79
• Periodic filings of rate reviews are extended from three years to five. P 96
|PR07-9, 126 FERC ∂ 61,018||January 12, 2009||Bay Gas||• Requires Bay Gas to remove provision authorizing Bay Gas to include language in contracts overriding other provisions in Statement of Operating Condition.|
|Order No. 714
124 FERC ∂ 61,270
|September 19, 2008||Electronic Tariff Filing||• Revised regulations to require that all tariffs, tariff revisions, and rate change applications for the public utilities, natural gas pipelines, oil pipelines and power administrations be filed electronically according to a set of standards developed in conjunction with the North American Energy Standards Board.|
|Order No. 703
121 FERC ∂ 61,171
|November 15, 2007||Filing Via the Internet||• Revised regulations to provide that all documents are eligible for filing by means of the Commissionís eFiling system, with exceptions posted by the Secretary of the Commission on the Commissions website. Spreadsheets in native file format with formulas are expected. Electronic filing enables all SOC to be searchable.|
|PR04-6, et al., 112 FERC ∂ 61,268||September 13, 2005||Cranberry Pipeline Corporation||• Required removal of all references to intrastate transportation services and rates from the companyís Statement of Operating Conditions|
|PR00-9-003 109 FERC ∂ 61,350||December 27, 2004||GulfTerra Texas Pipeline, L.P.||• Denied request for rehearing of triennial review filing requirement|
|PR99-4-003, 94 FERC ∂ 61,287||March 15, 2001||Consumers Energy Company||• In order to monitor the rates of Consumers (a Hinshaw) in accordance with NGA Section 5, Consumers must file cost and throughput data, specified in Section 154.313 of the regulations, and other information sufficient to allow the Commission to determine whether any change in Consumersí rate pursuant to NGA section 5 should be ordered.|
|PR99-18, et al., 95 FERC ∂ 61,452||June 27, 2000||Northern Illinois Gas Company||• Section 311 and Hinshaw pipelines are not allowed to have negotiated rate authority to ensure that they will not have a regulatory advantage over their interstate competitors|
| PR94-9, 85 FERC ∂ 61,080
(D.C. Circuit, Docket Nos. 94-1705)
|October 19, 1998||ANR Pipeline Company v. FERC||• The Court overturned an order wherein the Commission allowed a Hinshaw pipeline to use a blended rate for interstate storage even though the interstate pipeline it directly competed with was required to use SFV, because it gave the Hinshaw an unfair competitive advantage. Therefore, Hinshaw pipelines and Section 311 companies should file rates based on the SFV rate design.|
|PR97-13-000, 81 FERC ∂ 61,053||October 20, 1997||Tejas Gas Pipeline Company||• Intrastate pipelines that wish to participate in the NGPA section 311 program cannot discriminate against Interstate customers by according Interstate service a lower priority than comparable Intrastate service.|
|PR93-3-000, 72 FERC ∂ 61,164||August 3, 1995||Montana Power Company||• Required company to use current Cost of Service and billing determinants.
• Refund obligation for a Hinshaw pipeline.
|Jurisdiction of facilities for ß311 purposes
|42 FERC ∂ 61,397||March 31, 1988||Volkswagen of America. Inc.||• Volkswagen sought a declaratory order that its subsidiary, Westmoreland Pipeline, qualified as an intrastate pipeline under NGPA section 2(16). This pipeline was built to serve the VW plant from an interconnection with TETCO, both in PA. The pipeline would perform no other services. The Commission found that Westmoreland does not qualify as an intrastate pipeline as it would be transporting gas as the last link in a stream of interstate commerce originating in Louisiana and Texas and would actually be engaged in transportation subject to the Natural Gas Act.|
|11 FERC ∂ 61,267||June 4, 1980||Seagull Pipeline Corporation||• Seagull sought a declaratory order finding that a new facility constructed by Seagull for the purpose of providing Section 311 (a)(2) transportation and separate from its existing intrastate facilities would qualify as an "intrastate pipeline" within the meaning of Section 2(16) of the NGPA. The Commission found that this new facility does not change the intrastate status of the existing facility and it also qualifies as an intrastate facility. The definition in Section 2(16) does not apply to discreet facilities, but rather attaches itself to the corporate entity.|
|8 FERC ∂ 61,241||August 31, 1979||Black Warrior Pipeline. Inc.||• The Commission held that an intrastate pipeline could extend its existing facilities solely to transport gas for an interstate pipeline under Section 311 without rendering the facilities jurisdictional.|
|6 FERC ∂ 61,151||February 16, 1979||Texas Sea Rim Pipeline Inc.||• Texas Sea Rim sought a declaratory order stating that it was an intrastate pipeline within the meaning of NGPA section 2(16) so that it could transport gas pursuant to Section 311 (a) (2) on behalf of NGPL. Texas Sea Rim was a new pipeline and had not yet commenced intrastate transportation. The Commission found that it qualified as an intrastate pipeline because of: (1) the existence of a contract between an intrastate seller and an intrastate purchaser; (2) the intention of transportation of the intrastate sales volumes through the existing facilities; and (3) the pending application to construct a separate interstate line for transportation of NGPL's gas.|